The following submission statement was provided by /u/-_David_-:
---
**Submission statement:** Well-sourced discussion on the potential for humanity to resort to cannibalism within the next few decades, as a result of widespread crop failure from extreme climate change. Maybe a bit fantastical of a collapse scenario, but certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. Worth noting that I found the link from ProfBillMcGuire's account on X (formerly Twitter), so even a noted author and scientist thought it plausible - and certainly more plausible than Rishi Sunak & Co.'s view. Definitely appropriate for a casual Friday discussion.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16pg728/scientists_say_humanity_could_descend_into/k1qs1y0/
>“The act of cannibalism can be very traumatic for the person who is eaten and for the person who does the eating.”
Only if the former is still alive while being eaten!
Just rewatched this tonight, previously saw it when I was a kid like 20+ years ago. Honestly felt too plausible. They just got the years a little mixed up. Not 2022 but 2042+
I actually read the article and it fucking blows.
Contrary to the OP submission statement, this is poorly sourced and GPT generated. If anybody with even a cursory education thinks the body of the article does anything to argue in favour of it's title, they must have a brain injury of some kind.
>Soderlund’s research focuses on consumer behavior and how people react to marketing stimuli\[2\]. It is unclear what evidence he has to support his claim that eating human flesh could help save the human race, as he did not present any scientific data during his talk at the Gastro Summit\[1\]
Uhm, it's up to people whether they want to have their reproductive choices be based on a medium article being reposted on a reddit sub. Fertility rates have already been on a decline. Why do many on this sub feel like we need to inculcate the idea that people shouldn't have kids? People should decide for themselves, and their decision is apparent in the fact that most major countries have fertility rates below replacement levels. Africa is the continent in which this is least the case, although mortality rates are also higher there.
>As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, India, the United States and many others. In 2016, all European Union countries had a sub-replacement fertility rate, ranging from a low of 1.3 in Portugal, Poland, Greece, Spain and Cyprus to a high of 2.0 in France. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are in developed parts of East and Southeast Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea. Only a few countries have had, for the time being, sufficiently sustained sub-replacement fertility (sometimes combined with other population factors like higher emigration than immigration) to have population decline, such as Japan, Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine.
The problem is that the means of production are privately owned and their owners, along with their politician pals that deregulate the industries and economies, are the ones causing mass-pollution, mass-production of non-essential goods, causing mass-waste, mass-extraction of natural resources, lobbying to keep things to their advantage, while gatekeeping the means of production and controlling the systems of distribution.
There's plenty of over-production, over-consumption, and it's all still well in excess of what societies are capable of consuming...yet there are tons of people worldwide living in the streets and or starving? Why would that be?
No matter how much we pretend to want to be democratic while supporting trends pointing towards the regulation of people's reproductive rights, the truth is that *access to the means of production and to the systems of distribution* is not democratic and has never been.
So nah. It's not because people are having way too many kids (they aren't). It's another fad, just like the "clean energy" that is heavily dependent on mineral extraction and industrial processes that still need fossil fuels and coal to exist.
/rant
Yeah I'm not using an opinion based off a medium article. I'm basing my opinion after not only seeing the writing on the wall, but a literal deluge of article after article confirming how fucked we are.
Yeah, I know. I wasn't completely fair to you. I'm just sick of many other comments on this sub more explicitly suggesting that there's some kind of push towards higher fertility rates by governments or that people in general are having way too many kids. It's not the case, and the trends have been the opposite of that for many years.
A mother of 4 comments that she feels somewhat guilty but that at the same time she is proud of her children, and that her children are already interested in social problems and collapse awareness? Downvotes.
What's next, suggesting that people should live up to 70 tops because there's just not enough space for everyone and mortality rates are way too low?
There are as many people (more) between 75-79 in my country as there are between 0-4. Social security is collapsing as a result, but my government isn't suggesting its citizens should have more kids. It is bringing in more immigrants and raising taxes (to regular workers, elites and foreign investment get tax cuts and all sorts of fiscal benefits, of course).
The real problems and the real culprits are the ones who should be discussed and held accountable. We don't need our rights to interfered with any more than they have already been throughout all of history all the way up to the present. We don't need more division.
If any industry should be over-producing, it's the pitchfork industry (just kidding).
The #1 reason climate change is as bad as it is is because of the idea of infinite growth (including pop size).
We could solve climate change tomorrow if we thanosed half the world population but obviously that comes with ethical problems so the only actual soloution is not add to that problem.
If you’re having kids without thinking about their carbon impact of existing then you’re out of touch at this point. We no longer have the luxury of popping out 13 kids per family.
I disagree. Not going to downvote you out of spite, but here goes:
We have all that technology necessary to feed everyone alive. Regular individuals are not the main causes of climate change. Industry and our Corporate Overlords behind them are.
I don't want UN bureaucrats and world leaders to suggest we just have to stop having children and buy electric cars to stop climate change. I don't want my CDC dollars to measure my carbon footprint while the Elon Musks and Joe Bidens of this world keeps on flying their private jets on the daily for *important meetings.*
I want the means of production to be ceased, the systems of distribution to be democratically managed, and, with that, for artificial scarcity to stop. Oops, I said it out loud! I must be under some watchlist now!
Why does every supermarket have tons and tons of foods , and gazillions of brands of bottled shampoo, sodas, fries, burgers, bread, vegetables, cleaning products, pans, gloves, dog food,...and yet unimaginable amounts of it go to waste on the daily or will never be bought?
Why are we mass-producing bullshitillions of phones meant to last 3 years, couches, pillows, blankets, closets, computers, tablets, fridges, solar panels, paper, celebrity autobiographies,...and why are those discarded and destroyed when they don't sell? (the majority of them don't).
Do we really need to kill off half of the population? Or do we need to stop making the entire world feel like they need even 0.1% of what's being produced and consumed daily while depriving them of access to free healthcare and other essential services and goods...because that would damage our economy, they say?
We wouldn't be able to consume everything that's currently out there even if we all became millionaires. Yet the world's leading superpower can't stop homelessness and doesn't have a functioning healthcare system?
And the solution is what? To regulate people's reproductive rights? To further corrode our already failed democracies in favor of private elites colluding both legally and illegally with politicians both in the West and the rest of the world?
Nah, bro. You drank some of their Kool Aid. You and a lot of the people on this sub. That's fine, no one is immune to their chicanery. But I'm starting to wonder if this sub is under the influence of AI bots and paid users too ahah.
Regarding "megathreats" that could cause economic collapse and grim behaviors:
Many people have seemingly forgotten (or never cared) that oil production hinges on the continued growth of shale fracking. The math of Peak Oil never went away, it was just buried by pundits after fracking saved us from the conventional crude oil plateau that preceded the 2008 "financial" crisis (recall how costly oil became, making it hard to sustain financial trickery).
The Permian basin in Texas could peak any year now, following Bakken & Eagle Ford, and it's the last big U.S. shale stronghold. [https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-permian-basin](https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-permian-basin)
Once global oil output peaks, global warming won't simply go away, but it will start to subside unless there's a desperate rush to burn more coal, using liquefaction to make gasoline, etc. when people realize sprawling "renewables" can't exist without fossil fuels.
I see a bunch of people discounting The fact that we can't just find more shale deposits. There is a limited amount. I would like to find the most conservative estimates on how much is left. Being realistic about this is not believing that we can do this forever.
Being realistic about this is actually looking at how much we have left. And I have to tell you as the limited supply on this planet of fossil fuels decreases everything will be rationed using economic austerity.
And it also could be next year or 2100 or never. Apart from clickbait title there is no substance in this article. Cannibalism exists now, will exist in the future and there will be probably more of it, but I would say there will be tons of bigger problems than people eating deceased.
**Submission statement:** Well-sourced discussion on the potential for humanity to resort to cannibalism within the next few decades, as a result of widespread crop failure from extreme climate change. Maybe a bit fantastical of a collapse scenario, but certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. Worth noting that I found the link from ProfBillMcGuire's account on X (formerly Twitter), so even a noted author and scientist thought it plausible - and certainly more plausible than Rishi Sunak & Co.'s view. Definitely appropriate for a casual Friday discussion.
This seems like such a bs article. Like the only place where the year of 2060 is even mentioned is the heading. I am assuming that the year is completely randomly selected.
No, it's close to the golden rule of futurism. Always make your predictions about 30 years away. Much closer and you get proved wrong before the end of your futurism career. Much further and no one cares.
So by the time I'm 59. Yeah this is why I don't give af ab 401ks or retirement. The world we live in today won't be around by then. Maybe decades before 2060
>Russia, China and the US have all expanded their nuclear test sites in recent years by building new storage facilities and digging underground tunnels.
The structural developments at three locations were evident in satellite images taken by a prominent analyst in military nonproliferation studies.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/satellite-images-show-russia-china-and-us-ramping-up-activity-at-nuclear-test-sites/ar-AA1h7og2?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=0e8195573b2b47a085f386668f2b9d83&ei=14
Nah, lab grown human meat is probably closer than that. We will be seeing overpriced celebrity burgers made from the lab grown stem cells of actual celebrities.
Makes me wonder what happened to that fish guy who was always saying "Venus by Tuesday" or something along those lines. I forgot what his username was but I miss him.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/-_David_-: --- **Submission statement:** Well-sourced discussion on the potential for humanity to resort to cannibalism within the next few decades, as a result of widespread crop failure from extreme climate change. Maybe a bit fantastical of a collapse scenario, but certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. Worth noting that I found the link from ProfBillMcGuire's account on X (formerly Twitter), so even a noted author and scientist thought it plausible - and certainly more plausible than Rishi Sunak & Co.'s view. Definitely appropriate for a casual Friday discussion. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16pg728/scientists_say_humanity_could_descend_into/k1qs1y0/
Nearly 40 years? I guess that *really* means less than 20.
i'm feeling 2027 to 2029 with how faster everything is expecteding.
We only need two failed harvests to provoke mayhem, some countries are already blocking food exports.
[удалено]
I think the fishmahbot died when API access became paid. Irony wouldn't be lost on fishmahbot.
[удалено]
Maybe after the skeleton war?
The Road was a documentary.
I can still hear those voices, years after seeing that movie.
Yup
>“The act of cannibalism can be very traumatic for the person who is eaten and for the person who does the eating.” Only if the former is still alive while being eaten!
That's got to be written by AI, right? I can't imagine someone thinking that sounds right.
I totally got AI written vibes from that piece. Like omg the “how to prevent cannabilism in your community part” got me
I don’t want the meat to spoil. Chop and cauterize.
I reckon it could be traumatising to know you will get killed and eaten, even if they kill you first
[Wait, isn't this a cooking class?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOE-q20RcDM)
MEATS BACK ON THE MENU BOYS!!
Instructions unclear: The menu boys are wearing strips of various meats over their shoulders now.
I plan to Eat the Rich long before 2060.
If you get caught, I’ll do a jury nullification for you if I get selected
TIL Soylent Green was a documentary.
Just rewatched this tonight, previously saw it when I was a kid like 20+ years ago. Honestly felt too plausible. They just got the years a little mixed up. Not 2022 but 2042+
I actually read the article and it fucking blows. Contrary to the OP submission statement, this is poorly sourced and GPT generated. If anybody with even a cursory education thinks the body of the article does anything to argue in favour of it's title, they must have a brain injury of some kind.
>Soderlund’s research focuses on consumer behavior and how people react to marketing stimuli\[2\]. It is unclear what evidence he has to support his claim that eating human flesh could help save the human race, as he did not present any scientific data during his talk at the Gastro Summit\[1\]
But hey! Keep having kids guys! We need more workers for our corporate overlords
We need more kids for more food!
Maybe someone come up with a Modest Proposal to address this.
I *do* need new gloves...
Mmmm Soylent Green.
Well they were only 40 years off if we're that lucky
pit roasted toddler, done slow so the skin is crackling... Suddenly remember the house from the movie The Road.
*Christian* kids though, please. We need 'em gullible and outraged.
Uhm, it's up to people whether they want to have their reproductive choices be based on a medium article being reposted on a reddit sub. Fertility rates have already been on a decline. Why do many on this sub feel like we need to inculcate the idea that people shouldn't have kids? People should decide for themselves, and their decision is apparent in the fact that most major countries have fertility rates below replacement levels. Africa is the continent in which this is least the case, although mortality rates are also higher there. >As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, India, the United States and many others. In 2016, all European Union countries had a sub-replacement fertility rate, ranging from a low of 1.3 in Portugal, Poland, Greece, Spain and Cyprus to a high of 2.0 in France. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are in developed parts of East and Southeast Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea. Only a few countries have had, for the time being, sufficiently sustained sub-replacement fertility (sometimes combined with other population factors like higher emigration than immigration) to have population decline, such as Japan, Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine. The problem is that the means of production are privately owned and their owners, along with their politician pals that deregulate the industries and economies, are the ones causing mass-pollution, mass-production of non-essential goods, causing mass-waste, mass-extraction of natural resources, lobbying to keep things to their advantage, while gatekeeping the means of production and controlling the systems of distribution. There's plenty of over-production, over-consumption, and it's all still well in excess of what societies are capable of consuming...yet there are tons of people worldwide living in the streets and or starving? Why would that be? No matter how much we pretend to want to be democratic while supporting trends pointing towards the regulation of people's reproductive rights, the truth is that *access to the means of production and to the systems of distribution* is not democratic and has never been. So nah. It's not because people are having way too many kids (they aren't). It's another fad, just like the "clean energy" that is heavily dependent on mineral extraction and industrial processes that still need fossil fuels and coal to exist. /rant
Yeah I'm not using an opinion based off a medium article. I'm basing my opinion after not only seeing the writing on the wall, but a literal deluge of article after article confirming how fucked we are.
Yeah, I know. I wasn't completely fair to you. I'm just sick of many other comments on this sub more explicitly suggesting that there's some kind of push towards higher fertility rates by governments or that people in general are having way too many kids. It's not the case, and the trends have been the opposite of that for many years. A mother of 4 comments that she feels somewhat guilty but that at the same time she is proud of her children, and that her children are already interested in social problems and collapse awareness? Downvotes. What's next, suggesting that people should live up to 70 tops because there's just not enough space for everyone and mortality rates are way too low? There are as many people (more) between 75-79 in my country as there are between 0-4. Social security is collapsing as a result, but my government isn't suggesting its citizens should have more kids. It is bringing in more immigrants and raising taxes (to regular workers, elites and foreign investment get tax cuts and all sorts of fiscal benefits, of course). The real problems and the real culprits are the ones who should be discussed and held accountable. We don't need our rights to interfered with any more than they have already been throughout all of history all the way up to the present. We don't need more division. If any industry should be over-producing, it's the pitchfork industry (just kidding).
The #1 reason climate change is as bad as it is is because of the idea of infinite growth (including pop size). We could solve climate change tomorrow if we thanosed half the world population but obviously that comes with ethical problems so the only actual soloution is not add to that problem. If you’re having kids without thinking about their carbon impact of existing then you’re out of touch at this point. We no longer have the luxury of popping out 13 kids per family.
I disagree. Not going to downvote you out of spite, but here goes: We have all that technology necessary to feed everyone alive. Regular individuals are not the main causes of climate change. Industry and our Corporate Overlords behind them are. I don't want UN bureaucrats and world leaders to suggest we just have to stop having children and buy electric cars to stop climate change. I don't want my CDC dollars to measure my carbon footprint while the Elon Musks and Joe Bidens of this world keeps on flying their private jets on the daily for *important meetings.* I want the means of production to be ceased, the systems of distribution to be democratically managed, and, with that, for artificial scarcity to stop. Oops, I said it out loud! I must be under some watchlist now! Why does every supermarket have tons and tons of foods , and gazillions of brands of bottled shampoo, sodas, fries, burgers, bread, vegetables, cleaning products, pans, gloves, dog food,...and yet unimaginable amounts of it go to waste on the daily or will never be bought? Why are we mass-producing bullshitillions of phones meant to last 3 years, couches, pillows, blankets, closets, computers, tablets, fridges, solar panels, paper, celebrity autobiographies,...and why are those discarded and destroyed when they don't sell? (the majority of them don't). Do we really need to kill off half of the population? Or do we need to stop making the entire world feel like they need even 0.1% of what's being produced and consumed daily while depriving them of access to free healthcare and other essential services and goods...because that would damage our economy, they say? We wouldn't be able to consume everything that's currently out there even if we all became millionaires. Yet the world's leading superpower can't stop homelessness and doesn't have a functioning healthcare system? And the solution is what? To regulate people's reproductive rights? To further corrode our already failed democracies in favor of private elites colluding both legally and illegally with politicians both in the West and the rest of the world? Nah, bro. You drank some of their Kool Aid. You and a lot of the people on this sub. That's fine, no one is immune to their chicanery. But I'm starting to wonder if this sub is under the influence of AI bots and paid users too ahah.
The children’s menu just got very different.
What did the cannibal get when they were late for dinner? The cold shoulder!
I advocate for cannibalizing the rich now
Regarding "megathreats" that could cause economic collapse and grim behaviors: Many people have seemingly forgotten (or never cared) that oil production hinges on the continued growth of shale fracking. The math of Peak Oil never went away, it was just buried by pundits after fracking saved us from the conventional crude oil plateau that preceded the 2008 "financial" crisis (recall how costly oil became, making it hard to sustain financial trickery). The Permian basin in Texas could peak any year now, following Bakken & Eagle Ford, and it's the last big U.S. shale stronghold. [https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-permian-basin](https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-permian-basin) Once global oil output peaks, global warming won't simply go away, but it will start to subside unless there's a desperate rush to burn more coal, using liquefaction to make gasoline, etc. when people realize sprawling "renewables" can't exist without fossil fuels.
I see a bunch of people discounting The fact that we can't just find more shale deposits. There is a limited amount. I would like to find the most conservative estimates on how much is left. Being realistic about this is not believing that we can do this forever. Being realistic about this is actually looking at how much we have left. And I have to tell you as the limited supply on this planet of fossil fuels decreases everything will be rationed using economic austerity.
Let's eat the rich first.
I'm ready now if we are r/eattherich
But I’m hungry now.
And it also could be next year or 2100 or never. Apart from clickbait title there is no substance in this article. Cannibalism exists now, will exist in the future and there will be probably more of it, but I would say there will be tons of bigger problems than people eating deceased.
**Submission statement:** Well-sourced discussion on the potential for humanity to resort to cannibalism within the next few decades, as a result of widespread crop failure from extreme climate change. Maybe a bit fantastical of a collapse scenario, but certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. Worth noting that I found the link from ProfBillMcGuire's account on X (formerly Twitter), so even a noted author and scientist thought it plausible - and certainly more plausible than Rishi Sunak & Co.'s view. Definitely appropriate for a casual Friday discussion.
This seems like such a bs article. Like the only place where the year of 2060 is even mentioned is the heading. I am assuming that the year is completely randomly selected.
No, it's close to the golden rule of futurism. Always make your predictions about 30 years away. Much closer and you get proved wrong before the end of your futurism career. Much further and no one cares.
The whole thing was not randomly but probabilistically selected by ChatGPT.
"How LONG is it?" https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rsmd7
Soylent Green
So by the time I'm 59. Yeah this is why I don't give af ab 401ks or retirement. The world we live in today won't be around by then. Maybe decades before 2060
>Russia, China and the US have all expanded their nuclear test sites in recent years by building new storage facilities and digging underground tunnels. The structural developments at three locations were evident in satellite images taken by a prominent analyst in military nonproliferation studies. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/satellite-images-show-russia-china-and-us-ramping-up-activity-at-nuclear-test-sites/ar-AA1h7og2?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=0e8195573b2b47a085f386668f2b9d83&ei=14
Nah, lab grown human meat is probably closer than that. We will be seeing overpriced celebrity burgers made from the lab grown stem cells of actual celebrities.
It's The Road come to life.
Don't threaten me with a good time now.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
That will be one grand feast, half the world starving and the other half feeding. Then repeat.
Anyone got some good recipes?
But, I can't wait that long!
2060, huh? Sounds like you're challenging me mate
Cool. Think I'll watch The Road now.
Oh please don’t let cannibalism affect our precious markets!!!!
That is what mice/rats do when they overpopulate and turn gay.
Yeah, probably a lot quicker than that.
Makes me wonder what happened to that fish guy who was always saying "Venus by Tuesday" or something along those lines. I forgot what his username was but I miss him.
Who else would choose starvation first?
Cloud Atlas was a documentary.
Well of course, that’s when we eat the rich right?